City of Seattle Request for Proposal #TRN-67
Addendum
Updated 4/10/12
The following is additional information regarding Request for Proposal #TRN-67, titled Parking Pay-By-Phone Service released on 3/19/12. The due date and time for responses remains as 4/17/12 (Pacific). This Addendum includes both questions from prospective proposers and the City’s answers, and revisions to the RFP. This addendum is hereby made part of the RFP and therefore, the information contained herein shall be taken into consideration when preparing and submitting a proposal.
Item # / Date Received / Date Answered / Vendor’s Question / City’s Answer / RFP Revisions1 / In Section 8, Proposal Format and Organization, replace the embedded document titled “Technical Response” with the document embedded below titled “Technical Response Rev 1”
2 / In Section 6, Statement of Work and Specifications, Paragraph I, delete the entire sentence in this paragraph and replace it with - “The Vendor shall provide multiple real-time electronic options to facilitate enforcement of pay-by-phone parking within the City for vehicles that are not displaying a paid parking receipt.”
3 / 3/28/12 / 4/10/12 / We need to review integration of our mobile payments system on Enforcement’s Intermec handhelds. We are also speaking with Intermec and APS directly, but we want to ensure that there is no miscommunication between the three parties (PayByPhone, SPD and Intermec) / The City will wait to work on an integration plan between the mobile payment system and SPD Parking Enforcement equipment until the RFP process has completed. All vendors are allowed to contact Intermec or APS directly on their own if they choose. This is a change in our answer from the one given at the pre-proposal conference.
4 / 3/28/12 / 4/10/12 / Regarding signage installation, if the City has used local suppliers for installation of street signs in the past, could you refer 2-3 of those companies to us. / In the past, SDOT has used their own crews for parking sign installation, and therefore cannot recommend local vendors for this work.
5 / 4/02/12 / 4/10/12 / Will the signs which are currently above the pay stations (picture below) be removed and new signs (the larger 17”x36”) installed in their place? If yes, will the installer of the pay-by-phone signs at block ends be responsible for installing these larger signs as well, or will the City install the larger signs? / As part of our 2012 Paid Parking Installation project, SDOT will be responsible for the installation of new 17” x 36”signs (see updated sign image) by replacing the sign currently above/adjacent to the pay station in 19 out of 23 paid neighborhoods. SDOT is not expecting the pay- by-phone Vendor to install these specific signs in any areas. The expectation is for the pay- by-phone Vendor to design a 4” square icon sticker and place them on these signs. SDOT expects to agree to a design, installation, and approval schedule with the vendor during the contracting phase.
6 / 4/02/12 / 4/10/12 / Regarding credit card processing fees and interchange fees:
a) With credit card payments made at the existing Parkeon pay stations, does the City retain 100% of parking revenue or do they retain parking revenue less credit card processing fees? In other words from a $5 parking transaction does the City receive $5 from the processor, or an amount less than $5? If processing fees are paid by the service provider, or by the City, can the rate be disclosed to the pay by phone vendor?
b) Regarding credit card fees and interchange, does the City wish to have the same terms with their pay by phone provider as it does with its other credit card payment provider? In other words, the same revenue & credit card fee model. The above fee model is outside the scope of our convenience fees)
Existing sign on pole
New sign 18 ” x 36” / a) The City pays less than 7% in effective rate – as a flat percentage. This is a total percentage, not an ‘interchange plus’ model. So a $3.00 payment would cost us less than $.21 for acceptance of the credit card.
b) The City would like to have the same fee model as we currently have or any model that is more advantageous to the City.
Dimentions of space for pay by phone sticker at bottom is approximately 2 ½” by 5”
7 / 4/03/12 / 4/10/12 / Regarding sign installation we are contacting a number of local sign installers for this project, and I am wondering if it would be possible for the City to suggest 1-2 companies with whom the City has contracted in the past for this type of work. Due to the size and scale of the project (installation of 3,352 signs on poles, 2,100 decals on signs above meters and 2100 decals on pay stations) we feel it will be best for all parties, if we can work with an installation firm, who has a successful track record with the City. / In the past, SDOT has used only their our own crews for parking sign installation and therefore cannot recommend a local vendor for this service.
8 / 4/03/12 / 4/10/12 / If we request that our Price Response, Section 8 of the RFP, be withheld in the Non-Disclosure Request on page 4 of the Vendor Questionnaire, could you provide the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) provision that we should include in the table? / It is the proposer’s responsibility to cite the applicable Statute that exempts their price response from being subject to Washington State Public Disclosure laws.
9 / 3/29/12 / 4/10/12 / For the successful proposer, how long does it take to get a Seattle Business License from time of application? / The application can be made on-line. It takes approximately 2 to 3 days to be approved.
10 / 3/29/12 / 4/10/12 / Can we send an e-mail of our proposal. / The City requires one (1) hard copy original, four (4) hard copies and one (1) CD. If there is conflicting information within the hard copies, CD or e-mail, the hard-copy original will take preference.
11 / 3/29/12 / 4/10/12 / Does the City need a sealed proposal for each evaluation round? / No. Proposers will submit one (1) proposal which covers all rounds in the evaluation process
12 / 4/04/12 / 4/10/12 / Are the current handhelds web-enabled and is this at the city’s expense and not to be part of the price proposal? / Yes. The City of Seattle will be enabling the current hand-helds at City expense.
13 / 4/04/12 / 4/10/12 / Are there plans to expand the enforcement area described in the RFP? / No.
14 / 4/04/12 / 4/10/12 / Please describe “Public Right of Way” signs Vendor would be responsible for? / SDOT expects the vendor to install 2300 each 12” x 18” signs on existing poles above or near the pay stations.
For sign manufacturing, SDOT expects that the selected vendor will use the SDOT Sign Manufacturing Shop.
SDOT anticipates that there will be a combination of five signs and stickers on the blockface telling customers about pay by phone:
1) sticker on the new pay station signs (see question 5) of 4” by 4” dimension
2) sticker on pay station (Parkeon Stelios and Stradas) that would be a maximum of 13 inches by 5 inches for Stelios and a maximum of 11” by 1 ½” for Stradas.
3) One double-sided 12” by 18” sign on existing pole with new pay station sign (see item #1 above).
4) New sticker on side panel of pay station. See image below. Vendor will be required to develop and install stickers that match with the side panel to provide pay by phone information.
5) New sticker on the back side of existing Pay to Park end of block signs. This sticker would be primarily for Parking Enforcement to know their blockface location at the block ends.
Vendor cost to purchase the 2300 signs 12”x18” double-sided signs as referenced above from SDOT Sign Manufacturing Shop is approximately $40,000.
All costs for signage/graphic decals installation and manufacturing shall be borne by the Vendor and reflected in the “Convenience Fee”.
SDOT is very interested in learning from vendors about what kind of approach would be most effective given our current pay and display system and to best integrate with parking enforcement. If the signs and sticker requirements outlined above are not suitable based on lessons vendors have learned in other cities, please propose alternative signage
and/or graphics solutions. / Section 6 “Statement of Work and Specifications”
Paragraph K,
· Delete 2) “signs at both ends of each blockface”
SDOT is no longer requiring two new signs on
the end of each blockface
· Add to this paragraph, “For sign manufacturing, the Vendor will use the SDOT Sign Manufacturing Shop.
15 / 4/04/12 / 4/10/12 / How should a vendor respond to Section 7.15, Page 14 of the RFP if there are not any sub contracting opportunities? / The vendor should circle “no” in the Vendor Questionnaire under “Affirmative Contracting”. This questionnaire is in Section 8.
16 / 4/04/12 / 4/10/12 / Who is responsible for credit card processing fees, the City or the Vendor? / The City has an existing merchant account and we are open to hearing the advantages/disadvantages of the vendor being the merchant of record. Pay stations currently use CreditCall for credit card processing
17 / 4/04/12 / 4/10/12 / What time is the proposal due on April 17? / The proposals are due by 4:30PM (Pacific) as stated on the face page of the RFP.
18 / 4/04/12 / 4/10/12 / Below is #2 Mandatory Technical Requirement in the RFP as well as our understanding of what we receive when our audit is successfully completed. Would this meet the requirement or must we look further.
“The Vendor shall provide to the City an attestation by an objective third party, stating that the application has been tested for common security vulnerabilities as articulated by the "OWASP Top-10". These include sql injection, cross-site scripting, cross-site request forgery, and others. See www.owasp.org for details. This testing must be performed at the expense of the vendor and by an objective third party. The attestation may be simply an executive summary of the technical report, stating that the application has been tested against the aforementioned standard, and found to be free of security defect”.
The AOC is the Attestation of Compliance which is signed by Coalfire. However, an AOC does not specifically state anything about OWASP Top-10. Seattle should be familiar with the AOC and ROC which are the two documents that are generated upon successful completion of your audit. Perhaps you should speak with Seattle and if there is something else they want, then we will contact Coalfire / The City of Seattle will accept an Attestation of Compliance signed by Coalfire as having met the requirement to test against the OWASP standard.
19 / 4/04/12 / 4/10/12 / "The Vendor shall integrate the pay-by-phone transaction data into the City’s pay station vendor’s transaction account system."
Does this refer to Parkeon's Parkfolio or some other transaction accounting system? / Yes. It refers to Parkeon Parkfolio.
20 / 4/04/12 / 4/10/12 / Page 23, Attachment #1."Insurance Requirements and Transmittal Sheet"
How should one interpret the unchecked terms marked as red, such as "XCU and subsidence ...", "Garage Keeper's Legal Liability ...", etc.? Are they meant to be excluded, or should they be filled in? / Those items not checked are not applicable and therefore excluded.
22 / 3/28/12 / 4/10/12 / What is the expected revenue deposit schedule? / The City expects that paid parking revenues will be deposited on the next business day (typically 24-hours) of when transactions occurred.
23 / 3/28/12 / 4/10/12 / What is the current SPD Parking Enforcement workflow in paid parking areas and what is expected with adding pay by phone? / See embedded across.. / .
25 /
Add Prevailing Wage Requirements
Preparing Offer Forms with consideration of Prevailing WagesIf State of Washington prevailing wage rates apply to this contract work, the Offer submitted must clearly show the intent of the Vendor to pay prevailing wages. The City Buyer will consider whether pricing of the Offer is sufficient to clearly support payment of prevailing wages, and may seek clarification and/or reject the Offer accordingly. Note that your Offer should be sufficient to pay prevailing wages, as well as any vendor costs associated with filing of Intents and Affidavits, including filing of one Intent for the contract or multiple Intents during the life of the contract as required by the Department of Labor & Industries.
Prevailing Wage Requirements
a. If this contract has a category of work subject to prevailing wages, as required by RCW 39.12 (Prevailing Wages on Public Works) and RCW 49.28 (Hours of Labor) as amended or supplemented, Contractor shall be responsible for compliance by the Contractor and all subcontractors.
b. Filing Your Intent: The City requires an approved Intent from the Vendor for all the work within the contract. The awarded Contractor and all subcontractors shall file an Intent to Pay Prevailing Wage Form(s) concurrent with contract execution and as otherwise required by L&I. The Vendor works directly with L&I to receive an acceptable and approved Intent concurrent with contract execution, and/or multiple intents as required by L&I, which will comply with L&I filing and approval requirements.
· To do so, the Contractor and any subcontractors will require a Contract Number and Start Date. The Buyer will tell you the Contract Number; the start date is the date your contract is signed.
· The Contractor shall promptly submit the Intent to the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) for approval.
· The Contractor also shall require any subcontractor to file an Intent with L&I.
· This must be done online at the L&I website: http://www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/PrevWage/default.asp.
· If unable to file on-line, a paper copy of the approved Intent shall instead be promptly provided to the Buyer.